Skip to main content

Accused cannot be added to a pending case at mere asking of police

Lower courts should not include every other individual pinned down by the police as an accused in criminal cases without calling for materials to prove their involvement and getting satisfied, prima facie, about the need to prosecute them, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Nagamuthu made the observation while setting aside an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate at Uthamapalayam in Theni district on March 12, 2007 including two individuals as additional accused in a cheating case at the mere asking of the Rayappanpatti police and without any basis.

The judge pointed out that the police had initially booked the case against only one individual. Subsequently, an Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the Magistrate to add two more individuals as accused in the case. The petition did not contain any detail about the materials available with the prosecution to array the two as additional accused and as to how were they involved in the crime. Yet, the Magistrate allowed the petition and added the duo as accused forcing them to approach the High Court.

Shocked over the injustice that had been caused to the two individuals, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said: “In the instant case, I regret to say that both the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Judicial Magistrate have failed to discharge their legal obligation in a proper manner.

“I do not understand as to how a Judicial Magistrate can pass such a non-speaking order without reference to the evidence and without reference to the requirement under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. This is a classic example of how a judicial order should not be passed by any court.”

The judge directed the High Court Registry to forward of a copy of his order to the Magistrate, who was presiding over the court in Uthamapalayam in March 2007, “if he is in service even now and wherever he is, so that he does not repeat the same mistake in the future.”

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/accused-cannot-be-added-to-a-pending-case-at-mere-asking-of-police-says-high-court/article7128115.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more